>In Romans 9:6, Paul has the sentence often translated: "They are not all
>Israel who are of Israel." The Greek, as is so often the case, looks nothing
>like this! Rather, it reads: ou gar pantes hoi ex Israel, outoi Israel.
> Something similar is the case in verses 7 and 8.
>
>As I diagrammed the sentence, it occurred to me that I didn't know what ou
> modified. Although John Piper, in his doctoral dissertation, argues that
>"ou" modifies the implied verb in "outoi Israel," his construction doesn't
>make sense to me. It makes the sentence read: "All the ones who are of
>Israel, these are not Israel." But the context shows that Paul is NOT saying
>that everyone descended from Israel is NOT Israel.
>
>Option 2: Take "ou" with the first clause: "Not all who are of Israel."
> The problem there is connecting it with the cumulative "outoi." "Not all
>who are of Israel" = "these are Israel." I can't express my discomfort with
>this rendition well, but it just doesn't sound right to me. It sounds like
>saying, "Not everyone who is of Israel? Well, they are Israel." Doesn't
>make sense.
>
>My gut feeling is that the "ou" at the start of the sentence really negates
>the thought contained in the rest of the sentence: "NOT: All who are of
>Israel, these are Israel." Or, supplying the ellipsis: "It is NOT the case
>that all who are of Israel, these are Israel." And in verse 7: "It is NOT
>the case that, because they are Abraham's seed, all are children." And in
>verse 8: "It is NOT the case that the children of the flesh, these are
>children of God."
>
>Is my gut reaction way off base? Am I on the right track?

OU GAR PANTES hOI EX ISRAHL hOUTOI ISRAHL

The significance of Paul's thought is clear. Election does not apply
to Israel, en masse; i.e. God did not freely elect the _nation_ of
Israel, but only certain individuals within that nation. Not all who
are Israelites according to the flesh are elect Israelites.

With respect to your numbering scheme [OU construed with (...)]:

1. OU GAR PANTES hOI EX ISRAHL, (hOUTOI [EISIN] ISRAHL).

Though I enjoy John Piper quite a bit, I can't agree with this
rendering. As he writes, "For all those from Israel, these are
not Israel" (_The Justification of God_, 65). I think this means
that "No one who is physically descended of Israel is really a
true Israelite." Logically, "All A is not-B" is quite a different
proposition from "Not all A is B." The former is equivalent to
"No A is B" while the latter is "Some A is not B." Clearly Paul
wishes to express the latter.

The thought conveyed here seems to be quite irreconcilable with
rational thought: "Not all the ones who are of Israel, these are
Israel."

3. OU GAR (PANTES hOI EX ISRAHL, hOUTOI [EISIN] ISRAHL).

This is the only option that makes sense to me. The negation of the
entire thought "All who are Israelites according to the flesh are
elect Israel" produces just the thought which satisfies the contextual
requirements: "Some who are Israelites according to the flesh are not
elect Israel."